Dear Hui, Some considerations about resource caching at an HTTP-CoAP (HC) proxy are also present in sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 of the http-mapping-02 draft (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-castellani-core-http-mapping-02#section-4.2.1).
Best, Angelo On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 14:53, Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Hui, > > the obvious way to handle great client GET load at an intermediary is to set > up a cache. > This makes sure the origin servers don't get requests from this one proxy > more often than with a period of approximately max-age. > (Using an observation relationship on the CoAP side, this can be further > optimized.) > > To me it seems the load shedding mechanisms you describe create approximately > the same amount of state as a cache would, with the drawback of introducing > unpredictable 500 responses. A cache also already includes the logic you > sketch in (2), as a pending cache entry will inhibit further requests. > > So to me it seems a short discussion of the benefit of and implementation > techniques for caching intermediaries would be the best way to approach this > subject. A useful contribution would be to dig through the massive amount of > literature in this space and select a small subset that is useful for LWIG. > (There even is a Wikipedia category: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Reverse_proxy -- most of these do way > more than we need here, though.) > > What do you think? > > Grüße, Carsten > > _______________________________________________ > Lwip mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip _______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
